Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Development of New Technologies
for DNA Analysis of Challenging
Forensic Samples
Sudhir K. Sinha, Ph.D
InnoGenomics Technologies, LLC
1441 Canal Street, Suite 307
New Orleans, LA 70112
Commercial interest
The presentation is for scientific and educational purposes only
No financial interest in the following products:
Amicon DNA Concentrators, Identifiler® Plus, MiniFiler™, Quantifiler®, 7500 Real-
Time Instrument, SDS and HID software, GeneMapper, GeneMapper-IDX,
PowerPlex® S5, PowerPlex® 6C Fusion, Profiler, Cofiler, Globalfiler®, ForenSeq™
Kit, Quantifiler Trio.
Financial interest in the following products:
InnoQuant™ and InnoTyper™ produced by InnoGenomics Technologies, LLC
The Problem Degraded samples pose the following challenges in a
forensic DNA lab:
• Poor quality with little information on sample quality prior
to PCR amplification
• Low quantity
• Low ratio male/female mixture samples
• Inhibitors present
• Longer time to results due to necessary re-processing steps
• Often obtain unusable profiles (inconclusive or no result)
How does a DNA analyst determine whether to continue with
typing analysis, which typing test kit to use and how much
DNA to add to the amplification reaction to obtain a useful
profile in the first pass?
Possible Solutions
1. Tools to provide additional information on sample quality prior
to PCR amplification. These tools must provide: • Accurate quantitation values to reduce downstream re-processing
• Sensitive analysis
• Reproducible results
• Compatibility of platform (i.e. InnoQuant™)
2. Tools to provide usable results from degraded samples where
conventional STR analysis is unsuccessful. These tools must
provide: • Sensitive analysis
• Highly statistically discriminatory results
• Compatibility of platform (i.e. InnoTyper™)
InnoQuant™ Quality and Quantity assessment system
Three target qPCR assay:
Autosomal target of 80 bp (>1000 copies/genome)
Autosomal target of 207 bp (>1000 copies/genome)
Synthetic IPC for detection of inhibition
Use of this 3-target qPCR provides an additional tool to
be used prior to typing: the “Degradation Index” (DI)
DI80/207 = [short] / [long]
DI80/207 = 1 means no degradation
The higher the DI, the more degradation in sample
InnoQuant™ Primer Design
Real time PCR amplification plots
PCR efficiency: 96.689% 98.153%
Slope: -3.404 -3.367
R2: 0.998 0.996
Short Target Long Target
Figure 10 from FSI:G paper:
Degradation Study
ID Plus Electropherogram: Green
DI80/207 = 1
DI80/207 = 23
DI80/207 = 23
Using the [short]
to target 1 ng
Using the [long] to
target 1 ng
Using the [short]
to target IDP amp:
• 3 out of 30
alleles called in
DI80/207 = 23
sample
Using the [long] to
target IDP amp:
• 23 out of 30
alleles called in
DI80/207 = 23
sample
Degradation of Developed Fingerprints
Data from Reena Roy and Zachary Goecker at Penn State
University Forensic Science Program (see Stephanie
Plazibat’s talk #B110 on Thursday, February 19, 2015 at 2:00
PM)
• Three latent fingerprints were each collected on a glass slide.
Slides were then aged 1 day before development.
• Development techniques include black powder dusting,
cyanoacrylate fuming, and chalcogenide CTF
• Fingerprints were aged 1-6 weeks from the point of
development to the point of extraction. Aging was done
at ambient conditions.
• Fingerprint extraction was done using an LCN protocol
which involves pK digest and Amicon concentration.
Donor 1 CTF Cyanoacrylate Powder Not enhanced
1 Week 23.3 55.9 10.6 34.6
2 Weeks 6.0 10.6 6.4 21.3
3 Weeks 15.6 12.3 2.1 9.5
4 Weeks 16.0 Undetermined 11.6 Undetermined
5 Weeks 9.5 12.8 9.0 776.0
6 Weeks 7.3 23.5 11.4 17.0
Degradation of Developed Fingerprints Quantitation values (pg/uL) from short amplicon using InnoQuant™
Degradation Indices ([short]/[long]) using InnoQuant™
Average quantity of DNA across all developed prints:
14 pg/μl
Fingerprints developed with
Columnar-thin-film aged 6
weeks at ambient conditions
Donor 1 CTF Cyanoacrylate Powder Not enhanced
1 Week 4.75 3.23 3.87 3.12
2 Weeks 5.85 4.98 3.95 3.31
3 Weeks 4.33 4.92 4.39 5.11
4 Weeks 4.75 Undetermined 4.57 Undetermined
5 Weeks 5.72 4.04 5.31 2.56
6 Weeks 5.72 3.36 4.91 4.31
InnoQuant™ with Casework Samples
Data provided by Dr. Aaron LeFebvre at
Cellmark
216 property crime samples tested with InnoQuant™
Previously tested with Quantifiler® Human and Identifiler
Plus (half reaction with a target input of 500 pg)
Most samples that did not produce a result with
Quantifiler® Human did produce a result with at least the
InnoQuant™ short target
System Samples w/
no Quant
Value Percentage
InnoQuant (Short target) 5 2.3%
InnoQuant (Long target) 45 20.8%
Quantifiler Human 66 30.6%
Property Crime Samples and InnoQuant™
Most samples (75%) had a
DI80/207 between 3-10, which
indicates that a large percentage
of forensic samples have some
moderate degradation, which may
cause issues with targeting and
result in unnecessary rework
DI # Samples Percentage
<3 28 16.4%
3-5 68 39.8%
5-10 61 35.7%
10-15 7 4.1%
15-20 3 1.8%
>20 4 2.3%
Indicates higher sensitivity
of InnoQuant™
Use of InnoQuant™ to Predict
STR Success
Based on sample available and IQ long target, assessment can be made whether
an IDP profile is likely and whether or not other options are more suitable for
the sample (such as sample concentration, MiniFiler, mtDNA or InnoTyper™)
Use of InnoQuant™ to Improve
1st Pass Success Rates
DI Number
of
Samples Percentage
# of
Samples
with QF >
0.1 ng/uL
# w/Full
Profile on
1st Pass
% Full
Profiles on
1st Pass
<3 28 16.4% 8 8 100%
3-5 68 39.8% 9 3 33%
5-10 61 35.7% 7 0 0%
10-15 7 4.1% 0 0 0%
15-20 3 1.8% 0 0 0%
>20 4 2.3% 0 0 0%
If samples were properly targeted with IQ, the first pass success would improve.
Summary of InnoQuant™ Provides an additional tool, the “Degradation Index” (DI), which
can be used to more informatively select the typing system and the amount of target DNA to use
Compatible with current platforms (i.e. 7500 with either SDS or HID)
Highly sensitive: <1 picogram
Large copy number of selected targets minimizes the effect of variation between individuals, resulting in highly reproducible quantitation values
Leads to higher efficiency and higher profile success rates
Development and Validation studies published FSIG November 2014 issue
Now what...? • You have an indication of the quantity and quality of
your sample (the DI)
• Based on the lab’s internal validation studies, a DI
range can be determined to proceed with conventional
STR analysis. But if samples fall outside this range…
• Sample with a DI > 100 (for example) indicating high
degradation can proceed with one of the following: 1. Stop processing & report as “insufficient quality”
2. Proceed with MiniFiler (or other miniSTR kits) and get
results at a few loci
3. Proceed with mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequencing
analysis
4. Proceed with next generation systems with small
amplicon sizes
InnoTyper™ A mobile element based Small Amplicon DNA Typing System
Structure of Alu Element
•300 bp long
• RNA polymerase III transcribed
• 3’ oligo dA-rich tail
• 500,000 copies in human genome
• most amplification 40 mya
• similar copy # in human & higher primates
• dimer-like structure
• poorly transcribed
AA AAAA A B
Transposon vs. Master Gene Models
Time
Co
py
Nu
mb
er
TimeC
op
yN
um
ber
5Mya
15Mya
25Mya
35Mya
~55Mya
Monomeric phase
>850,000 copies Sx & J
40,000 copies Sg1
>200,000 copies Y
2,482 copies Ya5
1,851 copies Yb8
Dimeric phase
381 copies YC1
35 copies Ya5a2
63 copies Yb9
Batzer and Deininger (2002) Nature Genetics
Mobile Elements
Properties of Mobile Element Insertions
1. Stable polymorphisms that are not deleted
2. Known ancestral state
3. Identical by descent
4. Population specific alleles
5. Neutral genetic loci
6. Parallel independent insertion is essentially zero
(unlike STRs or SNPs)
ALU
~100bp (N) Amplification product
~400bp (I)
Amplification product
Caused preferential amplification
of empty sites due to 300 bp allele
size difference between I and N
(allelic drop-out)
Old Alu Multiplex Design
1. Homozygous Insertion = I, I
2. Heterozygous = I, N or N, I
3. Homozygous No Insertion = N, N
Empty and filled allele size variation causing preferential amp.
Alu multiplex with original
primer design
Insertion (I) Alleles
No-Insertion (N) Alleles
New Multiplex Design
Carter and Sinha, US Patent Application #60/902,850
Method for Genetic Detection using Interspersed Genetic Elements
Novel mini-primer Design Labeled (common) forward primer and unlabeled reverse
InnoTyper-21
20 markers + Amelogenin multiplex
System amplifies Alu sequences less than
125 bp
This system provides:
High sensitivity
High tolerance for degraded samples
High discrimination power (~1 in 100 million)
BP Size Comparison of mini-STR kits
with InnoGenomics markers
InnoTyper™ 21 Database Samples
Four US populations:
In-house: Caucasian (206), African American(201)
UNT: SW Hispanic (45), Asian American (44)
Additional Caucasian and African American:
100 Anonymous Paternity Trios (~200 M and AF samples)
with STR data and known Exclusion and Inclusion results.
Some Cauc & AA were environmentally degraded samples:
Swab samples left at >90°F in Louisiana for >5 years
Sensitivity 100 pg and 50pg
Average heterozygous peak heights:
474 RFU 152 RFU
Hair Shaft Study
Hair samples were purified and provided by Dr. Mark Wilson’s Lab
Sample Preparation:
Three hair samples and reference buccal swabs were collected from ten individuals
A follicular tag (0.5cm) was removed with UV irradiated scissors. 2 cm fragment of hair was then cut from this end
Hairs were cleaned via a series of washes
DNA was extracted from this 2 cm hair shaft
DNA extract was vacuum concentrated
Hair Shaft InnoQuant™ Results
IQ Long
pg/uL
IQ Short
pg/uL
Degradation
Index
Average 0.4 8.3 42
Minimum 0 0 5
Maximum 2.5 40.3 114
• Very low quantitation values
• Degradation is present
• Amplified with InnoTyper™ 21 o Total of 6.2 uL of DNA extract
added to amplification
Donor ID Large Small DI
1-1 0.00000 0.00011
1-2 0.00000 0.000115
1-3 0.00000 0.000153
2-1 0.002251 0.016421 7
2-2 0.000137 0.00902 66
2-3 0.00000 0.00000
3-1 0.00000 0.000243
3-2 0.00000 0.00041
3-3 0.00000 0.000174
4-1 0.002486 0.040278 16
4-2 0.001315 0.028299 22
4-3 0.000947 0.016411 17
5-1 0.00000 0.000424
5-2 0.00000 0.000908
5-3 0.00000 0.000628
6-1 0.00000 0.000214
6-2 0.00000 0.000156
6-3 0.00000 0.000209
7-1 0.00000 8.98E-05
7-2 0.00000 0.00016
7-3 0.00000 0.00026
8-1 0.000658 0.012372 19
8-2 0.002011 0.010771 5
8-3 0.00087 0.01506 17
9-1 0.000328 0.017123 52
9-2 0.00000 0.011822
9-3 0.00000 0.007381
10-1 0.00016 0.016266 105
10-2 0.000327 0.020693 63
10-3 0.000196 0.02242 114
Quantitation comparison for hair shafts
with usable InnoTyper™ profiles
Quantifiler Trio: Genomic Quant
(ng/ul)
InnoQuant™: Genomic Quant
(ng/ul)
Donor ID Large Small DI Large Small DI
2-1 0.0004 0.00135 3 0.00326
2-2 0.001 0.00285
2-3 0.00025 0.0039 16 0.00021 0.00691 33
4-1 0.00215 0.00935 4 0.00085 0.01617 19
4-2 0.00055 0.00505 9 0.00040 0.01010 25
4-3 0.00125 0.0031 2 0.00034 0.00570 17
8-1 0.00035 0.0018 5 0.003037
8-2 0.00145 0.00195 1 0.000579 0.002868 5
8-3 0.00055 0.00205 4 0.000244 0.004523 19
9-1 0.0001 0.0027 27 0.005372
9-2 0.00195 0.003373
9-3 0.001 0.002134
10-1 0.0001 0.0016 16 0.004292
10-2 0.0002 0.00185 9 0.00546
10-3 0.0016 0.005166
Average (pg) 0.7 2.7 9 0.4 5.4 20
2 cm Hair Shaft – InnoTyper™ 21 results
Total DNA = 1 picogram
10% Allele Recovery
DI = ? (Undetermined Long)
2 cm Hair Shaft – InnoTyper™ 21 results
Total DNA = 56 picograms
69% Allele Recovery
DI = 66
2 cm Hair Shaft – InnoTyper™ 21 results
Total DNA = 67 picograms
100% Allele Recovery
DI = 5
Hair Shaft IT21 Genotype Results
Donor ID DI Input
DNA (pg) %
recovery Donor ID DI
Input DNA (pg)
% recovery
1-1 N/A 0.7 12% 6-1 N/A 1.3 10%
1-2 N/A 0.7 10% 6-2 N/A 1.0 14%
1-3 N/A 1.0 5% 6-3 N/A 1.3 N/A
2-1 7 102.5 74% 7-1 N/A 0.6 14%
2-2 66 56.3 55% 7-2 N/A 1.6 12%
2-3 28 112.1 100% 7-3 N/A 1.6 2%
3-1 N/A 1.5 5% 8-1 19 77.2 90%
3-2 N/A 2.6 0% 8-2 5 67.2 100%
3-3 N/A 1.1 7% 8-3 17 94.0 98%
4-1 16 251.3 100% 9-1 52 106.8 98%
4-2 22 176.6 98% 9-2 N/A 73.8 88%
4-3 17 102.4 98% 9-3 N/A 46.1 60%
5-1 N/A 2.6 19% 10-1 105 101.5 76%
5-2 N/A 5.7 24% 10-2 63 129.1 93%
5-3 N/A 3.9 14% 10-3 114 139.9 76%
Over 50% Genotype Recovery Less than 50% Genotype Recovery
Hair Shaft IT21 Genotype Results
• Ten donors (30 hair shafts) were amplified with IT21
• 50% of rootless hair shafts produced usable, interpretable profiles
Donor 1
Donor 2
Donor 3
Donor 4
Donor 5
Donor 6
Donor 7
Donor 8
Donor 9
Donor 10
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
% A
llele
Rec
ove
ry
Total Input DNA (picograms)
Hair Shafts % Allele Recovery
Hair Shaft IT21 Statistical Analysis Marker
Hair 2-3 Hair 2-3,
Cauc Hair 2-3, AA Hair 4-3
Hair 4-3,
Cauc Hair 4-3, AA
AC004027 IN 0.493213309 0.497574317 NN 0.311645772 0.216386971
Ya5-MLS26 IN 0.465642379 0.25395411 IN 0.465642379 0.25395411
CHR20-79712 NN 0.269794514 0.478230737 IN 0.499245923 0.426623103
Ya5NBC216 N 0.582524272 0.800995025 II 0.50230936 0.359403233
Yb8NBC106 IN 0.494297295 0.489591842 IN 0.494297295 0.489591842
Yc1RG148 NN 0.50230936 0.221040321 NN 0.50230936 0.221040321
Yb8NBC13 NN 0.4013161 0.602361328 NN 0.4013161 0.602361328
Ya5ac2265 I 1.45631068 0.791044776 II 0.530210199 0.156437959
Ya5-MLS09 NN 0.333702517 0.587015173 IN 0.487934772 0.358307963
Yb8AC1141 I 1.223300971 0.467661692 IN 0.475068338 0.358307963
TARBP1 IN 0.487934772 0.404160788 IN 0.487934772 0.404160788
Ya5ac2305 IN 0.492635969 0.422761813 IN 0.492635969 0.422761813
ALU-HS4.69 I 0.766990291 0.63681592 NN 0.380078235 0.464567709
Ya5NBC51 I 1.029126214 1.189054726 IN 0.499575832 0.482129155
Ya5ACA1766 II 0.374116316 0.531230663 II 0.374116316 0.531230663
Yb8NBC120 IN 0.482986144 0.481176209 II 0.166273918 0.356426821
Yb9NBC10 NN 0.311645772 0.116141927 I 0.883495146 1.31840796
Ya5NBC102 NN 0.339334527 0.368406723 IN 0.486379489 0.477116903
Sb19.12 IN 0.426465737 0.477116903 NN 0.478514704 0.368406723
Yb8NBC148 II 0.74663022 0.299497537 II 0.74663022 0.299497537
Total frequency 2.46828E-06 1.38552E-07 6.23338E-07 5.54807E-09
1 in 405
thousand
Cauc
1 in 7.2
million
AA
1 in 1.6
million
Cauc
1 in 180
million
AA
Using in-house database, 2pq & p2 (2p for drop-out markers)
Hair Shaft Study Conclusions In spite of hair shafts exhibiting both LCN and
degradation, 50% of the samples produced interpretable profiles
Obtaining a profile was largely dependent on DNA quantity AND Degradation Index.
Hair shafts processed with InnoTyper™ 21 provided usable genotype data with statistical power comparable to or better than mtDNA
Typically, a forensic laboratory will not process hair shaft samples; or will send to a mtDNA lab
InnoTyper™ provides a way for forensic labs to process hair shafts using existing platforms
InnoTyper™ 21 and Missing Persons
Data from Dixie Peters at UNT Center for Human
ID – Molecular and Medical Genetics Department
(see Dixie Peters’ talk #B133 on Friday, February
20, 2015 at 11:25 AM)
Sensitivity study performed with skeletal remains
previously tested with Identifiler Plus and mtDNA
MP human remains with no previous successful
profile data using autosomal STR and mtDNA
Three skeletal samples chosen and eight different concentrations of each sample
were amplified (500pg, 250pg, 125pg, 62.5pg, 31.25pg, 15.63pg, 7.8pg, 3.9pg)
InnoTyper™ 21 Sensitivity Study
Sample AC004027 Ya5-
MLS26
CHR20-
79712 Ya5NBC216 Yb8NBC106 Yc1RG148 Yb8NBC13 Ya5ac2265 Ya5-MLS09 Yb8AC1141 TARBP1 AMEL Ya5ac2305 ALU-HS4.69 Ya5NBC51 Ya5ACA1766 Yb8NBC120 Yb9NBC10 Ya5NBC102 Sb19.12 Yb8NBC148
UNT1_3.9 N 300 I I,N N I,N N N I 66 I N UNT1_7.81 I,N N I,N I N I,N N I I 112 I N N 84 UNT1_15.63 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N 184 N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I 69 I UNT1_31.25 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N I,N N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I I,N I UNT1_62.5 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N I,N N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I I,N I UNT1_125 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N I,N N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I I,N I UNT1_250 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N I,N N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I I,N I UNT1_500 I,N N I,N I I,N I,N N I,N N I I X,Y I I N I N N N,I I,N I UNT6_3.9 N N 325 I,N N N I I,N I I X 88 N I 67 N N I UNT6_7.81 N N 148 I,N I,N N N I I,N I X I,N N I N I UNT6_15.63 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I 96 N N I 124 I UNT6_31.25 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I I,N N N I I,N I UNT6_62.5 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I I,N N N I I,N I UNT6_125 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I I,N N N I I,N I UNT6_250 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I I,N N N I I,N I UNT6_500 N N I,N I,N I,N N N I I,N I I X I,N N I I,N N N I I,N I UNT7_3.9 N I 187 N N 153 I,N N I X,Y 112 96 70 75 I UNT7_7.81 N I I,N I,N N N 252 352 N I I 237 I,N 154 N,I 73 52 I I UNT7_15.63 N I I,N 664 N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I 193 I,N I,N I I UNT7_31.25 N I I,N I,N N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I I,N I,N I,N I I I UNT7_62.5 N I I,N I,N N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I I,N I,N I,N I I I UNT7_125 N I I,N I,N N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I I,N I,N I,N I I I UNT7_250 N I I,N I,N N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I I,N I,N I,N I I I UNT7_500 N I I,N I,N N N I,N I,N N I I X,Y I,N I,N N,I I,N I,N I,N I I I
3 skeletal remains produced a full profile at
31 picograms (50 RFU min threshold)
Lowest concentration produced a full profile
RFU of surviving sister allele
Complete allele dropout observed
Discordance
50 RFU threshold used
Sample
Name Quant
uL
amp’d STR Information Mito Information IT21 Information
Avg
IT21
RFU
Genotype
Frequency
UNT 11 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR NR 4 locus partial 779
1 in 226 Cauc
1 in 4,656 AA
UNT 12 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR NR NR (1 locus) 544
UNT 13 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR Inconclusive results 17 locus partial 302
1 in 14 billion Cauc
1 in 254 million AA
UNT 14 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR NR NR -
UNT 15 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR NR 6 locus partial 271
1 in 953 Cauc
1 in 661 AA
UNT 16 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR
Reportable (16024-
16386; 52-302; 316-399) 2 locus partial 223
UNT 17 UND 10.4 Profiler/Cofiler
increased cycles, NR
Reportable (16001-
16386; 72-399) 2 locus partial 260
InnoTyper™ 21 and Missing Persons
Three of seven remains yielded usable genotype data
with InnoTyper™ 21
Human Remains Result – UNT13
InnoTyper™ 21 can be used in the analysis of human
remains
InnoTyper™ proves useful even in cases where previous
STR and mtDNA tests were unsuccessful
Highly sensitive method(optimal target amount is ~250 pg
but can get full profiles with as low as 31 picograms)
High power of discrimination
Missing Persons Study Conclusions
InnoTyper™ and historical remains
Identifiler Plus InnoTyper
InnoTyper™ Kit Summary…
• Stable, well characterized and published markers with a number
of appealing genetic attributes, inherited by descent only.
• Ability to analyze degraded nuclear DNA, ideal for use with
samples requiring mtDNA analysis.
• High Power of Discrimination: greater than mtDNA.
• Ideal for mass disaster testing of highly compromised samples.
• Can be utilized with existing or RDIS, next-gen platforms
• Can provide information regarding bio-ancestral origin and sex
of an unknown sample.
• Like other Bi-Allelic systems, not yet suitable for mixture analysis
using standard CE methods.
Conclusions
Next-generation (NG) systems are now available to improve
sample processing and profile success in forensic labs.
Quantification & Degradation Assessment Kit InnoQuant™
provides additional information prior to PCR amplification
that will significantly reduce downstream re-processing and
enable DNA analysts to make decisions informatively.
Alu based typing kit InnoTyper™21 data demonstrates the
ability to obtain successful DNA profiles from challenging
samples, such as skeletal remains, historical remains and cut
hair shafts that all previously failed to produce STR data.
Acknowledgements This material is based upon work supported by the National Science
Foundation under Grant No. 1230352. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science
Foundation.
Collaborators:
Cellmark: Dr. Aaron LeFebvre, Sheri Ayers
Penn State University Forensic Science Program: Dr. Reena Roy and
Zachary Goecker
Western Carolina University: Dr. Mark Wilson, Dr. Kelly Grisedale
UNT Center for Human ID: Dr. Art Eisenberg, Dixie Peters, Dr. Bobby
LaRue
Staff:
Dr. Hiromi Brown, Robyn Thompson